- The historic Young Women’s Journal is now online and searchable!
- Mormon Mentality welcomes a new blogger
- New York Times article on “The Mom Job” and an LDS blogger’s response (tip from Azucar)
- Speaking of bodies: What real breasts look like (note: *real* photos — see comments for a discussion)
- SL Tribune spotlights FMH(Mormon Mommy Wars gets a nod, too)
- The family that bakes together . . .
- If you were a female speaker at General Conference, what would you say?
- Mogget: Julien of Norwich and the Atonement
- Arizona Phoenix article on Eliza Magazine — a new fashion magazine created by Mormon women. Eliza website here.
- Utah Readers: An upcoming Laurel Thatcher Ulrich lecture
- A great article on the Relief Society General Presidency. Did you know Sister Allred has lived in nine countries?
- Brooke: The Jesus Brand
Just because:
the link that’s supposed to be to “the jesus brand” actually took me to the anita hill article. any chance you could post the link to the jesus brand piece, deborah? thanks!
Thanks. Fixed.
I generally like this website even though I don’t always agree with everything that is said. Sharing opinions and thinking outside of the box is a healthy. However, did you really need to show us what “real breasts” look like? I can look in the mirror after I take a shower or go to the locker room at the gym to see that. Pornography hurts so many hearts and families, and well the intent was good, I really think you went downstream by posting that. Not very impressive… Sometimes you guys try too hard to be progressive and forward thinking.
Hi, anonymous:
Thanks for your feedback. It surprised me a little because the pictures on that site seem, to me, to be the *antithesis* of pornography.M y purpose in linking to this site was in counterpoint to the NYtimes article on “mom jobs.”
Indeed, one of the effects of pornography — and women’s fashion magazines — is the objectification of a body that is simply not typical of “real women.” This seems to me to be more in keeping with something like Dove’s “Real Beauty” campaign — showing pictures are untouched, NON-SEXUALIZED. Or the site that made the rounds among the LDS women blogs (conservative and more liberal) last year that showed pictures of women’s bodies post pregnancy — that celebrated the scars and stretch marks as part of the miracle of giving birth. At both these sites, women have chosen to upload these photos as a statement AGAINST the photo-shopped “perfect bodies.”
http://www.theshapeofamother.com/
Note to readers: in the breasts site, the pictures start after an introduction about body image (e.g. after the “fold”) and in the above site, you click into the pictures. In other words, they provide a buffer and explanation before the pictures.
Deborah, I thought your motive was admirable in posting the link to that website. However, I didn’t see those pictures as being non-sexual at all. (We all have the goods whether we look like Pamela Anderson or not.) Ex. On a recent trip to Cancun, I was bothered by all the women on the beach that were topless. They came in all shapes and sizes and were all degrading themselves by what they were displaying. Likewise, while this website’s intentions were good, I didn’t appreciate the means by which their point was made. Furthermore, you mentioned in your response to my first comment that you have to click on the pictures once you reach the website. Not so. I clicked on the link on the Exponent Blog, and these women were shown in all their glory.
Oh I misread what you said, you were referring to another website when you said you had to click into them. My bad.
Maybe my screen is smaller — I’ve made note on the original post :).
I’m curious, do you think any picture of an uncovered breast is, inherently, sexual? This site seems to explicitly say “here are non-sexualized everyday bodies.” Do you think this is an impossibility? I see this argument go around sometimes on mom-blogs re: breast-feeding in public. I’ve seen the most conservative LDS mom become irate at the suggestion that discrete breastfeeding in sacrament meeting is inappropriate.
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=1036
I really like this article by Kylie Turley and would be curious to hear your take:
http://segullah.org/summer2007/nursing/
Deborah: In reponse to your questions…”Do I think any picture of an uncovered breast is “inherently” sexual? No. There are some, (very few,) artistic displayals of breasts that I can appreciate. I recognize that there isn’t exactly a black and white response when it comes to nudity. Despite what you might conjecture from my conservative comments on this matter, I attended a liberal university, am a Democrat, and hold many liberally minded ideas on other subjects. I also ignorantly pranced around in bikinis before I went through the temple, went on a mission, and had my 1st temple marriage annulled to a man who was addicted to pornography among other things. I have a strong testimony of modesty and the law of chastity. Through my personal experiences, study, and oberservation, I have come to the conclusion that many Latter-Day Saint Women are far too lackadaisical in their acceptance of inmodesty and nudity in their homes. Our husbands are not thinking the same thing we are when we are watching “Desperate Housewives,” “So You Think You Can Dance,” or whatever other mindless show that entertains us. I read the article on one of the links you referred me to regarding breastfeeding. I personally would not breastfeed in sacrament meeting. It doesn’t bother me, however, when women have blankets and try to be discreet about it. I think people need to be considerate of other people’s children,families, and viewpoints in public places. I guarantee you that the deacon passing the sacrament isn’t thinking that the exposed breast of a breast feeding woman is a nice displayal of nature when he passes the sacrament.
Anonymous:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I hadn’t really “pegged” you one way or the other — partly because I know that the objectification of women’s bodies is one area in which those on both sides of the spectrum can often find agreement. Part of *my* way to counteract this message is to work on telling myself that my clearly-not-“ideal” body is still, somehow, beautiful. I know that fashion magazines are triggers for my own destructive internal dialogue (the voice that berates my poor pudgy tummy). So I don’t choose to buy them. I find depictions of real bodies a helpful reminder that I am delightfully average — much the way Rubin (the artist) seemed a revelation the first time I saw one of his murals in a museum. The women were impossibly large and simply beautiful. However, I can completely respect other people drawing different boundaries. You know first-hand the difficulty of being close to someone for whom these boundaries were painfully distorted. I thank you for engaging in this discussion. I hope you stick around.
Deborah: I think it’s great you counteract the media’s message concerning women’s bodies through objecting to fashion magazines. I just discovered that in Utah County it’s a law to cover up the scandalous girls on the covers of magazines in grocery store lines, and I think that is truly progressive. I guess I felt you were trying to “peg” my background after you asked me if I felt all pictures of breasts were sexual and if I objected to public breastfeeding. I guess I felt like your next question was going to be if I lived on a compound in Colorado. I probably shouldn’t have mentioned my own experience with pornography because I didn’t want that to be your final word on my objection to your posting. My feelings about pornography and inmodesty are shared by many. I just felt the need to be honest in my background because I believe that even the most intelligent, well crafted, and seemingly objective arguments are never really objective. Experience molds all of us. That being said, I appreciate your desire to engage in discussion with me and your kind response to my objection to your post.:) I love this website and appreciate your desire to facilitate open and candid discussion.
My questions tend to be genuine, not rhetorical 🙂 Because it’s hard to read tone in an internet post, I’ve made it a goal not to use sarcasm or the like (which isn’t really my style in person, anyway). One of the reasons so many of the posts at ExII are in the narrative style is precisely for the reason you mention — so much of what we come believe is instructed by our experiences. I’m not a big debater by nature, but I do love a good discussion with people who are willing to take each other seriously.
OK, I have to say I have never seen the breast website and love it. I love that it shows what real women look like and not what we constantly see…everywhere.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. both Anon and Deborah.
I confess that I was surprised that SYTYCD would be linked with Desparate Housewives as being sexually provocative.
In my own life, I know that body comparison is rampant among women. It’s comforting to know that there are as many different body types as there are personality types, and that women are finding acceptance on their own terms, and not the media’s.
Deborah, the link to the website doesn’t bother me at all, but I’m confused by the argument that because the breasts aren’t photoshopped, porno-cliched breasts they aren’t inherently sexual. My breasts, after carrying and nursing three children until the age of 3 are the antithesis of the porno-boob look – but are they sexual? Hell yes they are! They aren’t *only* sexual, but sexual is up there at the top of the list. My husband would agree, and I have no doubt that many many men and women find some enjoyment in looking at the breasts on that website. I’m not going to get into a discussion about what is and isn’t “porn” (although I should point out that not all porn is highly stylized) but why do you insist that “everyday bodies” are “non-sexualized?”
I love that website, and shapeofamother too, BECAUSE they proclaim that “real” women with “real” bodies are legitimate, and that Barbie dolls aren’t the only ones out there enjoying being in their own bodies.
So link away! But please recognize that it’s a bit naive to call any woman’s breasts “non-sexual.”
AnonII:
I guess I’m making the distinction between “sexual” and “sexualized.” To me, the verb “sexualized” has the connotation of passivity on the part of the receiver — it seems like an artificial construct meant to bring satisfaction to the viewer/doer but not to the one being “sexualized.” When I am comfortable with my body (see above discussion) I am more comfortable with my own sexuality. So I suppose I am using “objectified” and “sexualized” as (perhaps poor?) synonyms. But that was my meaning.
Your point is well taken.
Dora: My comment about Desperate Housewives was not in reference to the breast website, it was to Deborah’s other questions about whether I thought all pictures of breasts were sexual. I don’t think the website would have bothered me if I was sitting in a waiting room to go to the gynecologist or something, but I wasn’t expecting “boobs” on an LDS oriented website when I clicked on the link. My husband was sitting right next to me on the couch and it was embarrasing and uncomfortable. If I don’t want him to look at porn, then why should I be looking at that? If it would have been photos of male genetalia in all different shapes and sizes, would it have been appropriate for me to be looking at? Whether a “boob” site with good intentions can be linked to a “boob” show like Desperate Housewives with not so good intentions I think is still debatable though. I think the media has numbed many of us so much, that what’s acceptable has become a little too gray.
Dora: Nevermind Dora, I didn’t know what SYTYCD stands for. I don’t think Desperate Housewives and that show are on the same level, but I think SYTYCD is definitely provocative.
L&A ~ I’m surprised, but not amazed that some think of partnered dance as provocative. But we’re al built differently, and we should each know where our strengths and weaknesses are, and protect ourselves.
I had a male friend who would not go to the beach alone, eventhough he was an avid rollerblader. He knew that seeing women clad in bathing suits were going to be a big distraction. I gave him a hard time about it when I found out … when he invited me to go rollerblading along the beach! But I also gave him kudos for knowing himself, and being proactive. Instead of blaming and expecting others to conform to him, he adjusted his own activities so that when he was in the area, he was always engaged in sports of conversation with other people so that his mind didn’t wander to places he didn’t want them to.
I agree that the “real breast” site may not be for everyone. However, I think that it depends on individual inclination, not inherently evil material (if so, then women must be inherently evil, no?). I’m not sure about any changes that Deborah made in the labelling of the link, but it now reads quite descriptively of what to expect, so I would hope that people are paying attention to what they are clicking on. And if it’s not to the taste, I would hope that people would be in tune enough to leave alone what they find objectionable. It sounds like you and the other Anon responders were able to do just that.
Dora: I don’t think of all “partnered dance” as being provocative, but I think some of the outfits and moves on SYTYCD are. Debra changed what the link said after I told her I didn’t think it was appropriate. In theory, I think your statement sounds nice to not blame or expect others to have to conform to your own standards, but I see that post as being pornography, plain in simple. I don’t think pornography is appropriate for anyone to look at whether you have the inclination towards it or not. I don’t get your point about women being “inherently evil” if the pictures are, I don’t see the correlation there. That site doesn’t arouse me, nor do I have an inclination to look at porn, but I think the website would excite someone attracted to women, which is why I think it’s distasteful to have it posted on the internet. The Exponent blog is on a link to my website which a lot of friends and family look at. It bugs me that my husband and many others are two clicks away from the boob page. I didn’t think the majority of people on this website would agree with me, but I don’t mind standing alone in my objection. So many of the woman on this website give their opinions freely and want their voice to be heard. It seems silly and hypocritical to tell me that I shouldn’t “blame and expect others” to conform to my own opinion and that I basically need to keep my mouth shut and not click on the link. I think it’s funny how sometimes outspoken people think they need to stand on a soap box about everything, but see the need to stifle opinions that are contrary to their own agenda. If you feel I am in the wrong for voicing my opinion and objecting to Deborah’s post, then you must also be in the wrong for voicing your own.
Laura ~
I am indeed very sorry to have made you feel slighted or silenced. I apologize for having given that impression. In fact, I’m glad that you are participating here on the blog, and sharing your thoughts and opinions to the betterment of honest discussion.
Yes, we disagree about what we each think constitutes pornography. I don’t think this implies that either of us is wrong or stupid. It just means that we are different people with different views; which makes our participation and interaction part of what is so wonderful about this blog.
Dora: No worries. I did feel with the example of your friend and your explanation that it was clear you were telling me to make my own adjustments and not expect others, (i.e.Deborah or the Exponent Blog) to conform to my own standards. I have made my own adjustments and have taken the link to the Exponent blog off of my own. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I enjoyed our quasi- debate.
The appropriate uses and depictions of breasts must be in the air — Segullah has a post up about nursing that may be of interest . . .
http://segullah.org/segullah-article-discussions/nursing/
Dora: Thanks for the link. Debra had me read a similar one as well:
http://segullah.org/summer2007/nursing/
I don’t believe the best way to fight the media’s inaccurate representations of women is to show nude pictures of what real women look like. Baring breasts to take a stand is stooping down to the media’s level of indecency. Real women with real breasts need to be intolerant of what the media offers us, instead of adding to the wide spectrum of pornography on the internet.
Oh that post was from you Deborah. Thanks for another one.
Consider the words of Dallan H. Oaks:
“…do not patronize pornography. Do not use your purchasing power to support moral degradation. And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you.”
I would love to hear someone’s take on how these women HAVE NOT “become pornography” by displaying their breasts for the public to see.
Because breasts are to feed children.
FEED CHILDREN.
Everything else is secondary.
EVERYTHING.
Until everyone who thinks of breasts as something bad, sexual, some thing that must be hidden because it is in its very nature pornographic, is educated in the true design, I want nothing to do with you.
The literal meaning of pornography is writing of whores. WHORES. You are calling God’s design for female bodies whorish.
Are you saying God made a mistake when he made me with breasts that fill with milk? Are you calling God a liar?
Sorry, that late 20th century American strictly cultural attitude will not, cannot stand up to the onslaught of history and divine nature.
I will stand up because our children, girls and boys, would do well to learn the function of our bodies. If they are so consumed with the morality of breastfeeding in public, it is because they have not seen it. Until women accept their bodies, accept that breasts can nourish God’s child on loan, I will fight the good fight.
I will stand up and nurse my children because it is divine in purpose and authority. And you’ve just inspired me to nurse in Sacrament meeting next week.
Laura:
I think much of this returns to the concept of “modesty” — which I believe encompasses far more than simply hemlines (that’s a post I’ve been meaning to write for months, so this is probably the impetus I need). When modesty is simply about women keeping men free from “sexual thoughts,” we are bound to distort both our power and powerlessness in this regard; and I worry that we actually play into the oversexualization of women and girls by saying, essentially, that our bodies are inherently constant temptations that must be guarded.
I don’t have time to write more right now, but I did find this discussion of modesty stimulating:
http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/04/10/feminisms-critique-of-modesty/
Here’s that link again.
Now I have to go clean my car!
I am by no means calling the female body whorish. I think the female body is beautiful and sacred, and my argument wasn’t about breast feeding, it was about the boob website. By saying that I think breasts are “bad” and “by very nature pornographic” because I don’t think women should take off their shirts to stand on a soap box in support of “real bodies,” is miscontruing my argument entirely. Your whole argument about me calling God a liar is pretty dramatic and far fetched, but it makes for an interesting blog post. My feelings about modesty are more than a “late 20th century American strictly cultural attitude.” Last time I checked Latter Day Saint reasoning for modesty and wearing garments surpassed cultural boundaries. Breasts serve a great purpose in feeding children, but according to my husband, their purpose is much more than that, and rightfully so. Your attitude about breasts being overwhelming used for reproduction and mothering purposes seems more archaic than my argument that a bunch of women with their shirts off on the internet can be considered pornography.
Phew!
Such is the nature of written communication, easily misunderstood and easily given to hyperbole (to which I often tend, as Deborah can tell you.)
I think we’re just going to have to disagree on the breasts website.
Azucar: Agree to disagree. By the way, I’ve seen your blog linked through other websites and I think your hilarious. Thanks for your input.
Deborah:
I enjoyed the article you posted about modesty. I think it would be great if you wrote another post about modesty, because while it is related to the breast site, there are a lot of other areas to explore and I would be interested to hear what you have to say. I think I’ll reserve my comments about the link if writing a seperate post about modesty is what you are intending to do. 🙂
Deborah:
One more thing…If you agree with the claim below that was emphasized in the modest post you linked, I think it would be great if you backed up that claim with some evidence in your post about modesty. How do we know that modesty exists for this reason?
“Modesty exists mostly as a reason to obsess over what women are wearing and remind them non-stop that no matter what else they do with themselves, they’re just sex objects in the eyes of the patriarchy.”
Great discussions here!
I’ve been thinking about this, and I can identify with Laura’s concerns about friends or family seeing the breast link and getting concerned.
But, truthfully, while all my family and most of my friends have this link, the ones who check it probably won’t care or they’ll say, “that’s just Emily and her crazy feminist friends.”
Although, if my nephews did know they could see a little boob action, well, maybe they’d check that out, and then, read Maria’s excellent post on the Feminization of Migration. Ok, ok, I’m completely naive. 🙂
But, really, Laura, Deborah, Dora, Azucar, et al–I admire all of you for engaging in dicussion and really listening to each other. Why can’t RS be more like this?
Azucar,
“Because breasts are to feed children.
FEED CHILDREN.
Everything else is secondary.
EVERYTHING.”
This simplification of a wonderfuly complex issue just boggles my mind.
Breasts can only feed children if the children get here in the first place, and the role that breasts play in sexual attraction and enjoyment of both women and men is something I hope I don’t need to explain to anyone here.
So why the either/or thing? Breasts do more than one thing, and they do it well.
Do we have to deny the obvious sexual nature of breasts in order to justify breastfeeding? I don’t.
I, like you, have fought “the good fight” to promote and normalize public breastfeeding, having spent 9 of the last 15 years nursing whenever and wherever my babies/toddlers needed to nurse, but I’ve never felt comfortable with the common lactivist insistence that breasts aren’t sexual. They are both. How should people deal with it? In a reasonable, socially appropriate way, I hope.
But back to the breast website. I am well aware of the difference between “sexual” and “sexualized” but I think the difference is irrelevent in the context of Laurandandy’s concern. Full disclosure: I am not religious, and the “morality” of nudity/modesty is not an issue I lose much sleep over. Knowing, however, that it is a big deal for many Mormons, I was pleasantly surprised to see the link here, but then subsequently confused/dismayed by the fact that the link was defended with the position that “these photos are ‘non-sexualized’ so the recognition of their potential eroticism is off the mark” and not “breasts of all kinds are inherently sexual, deal with it.”
Frankly for me (most days), they are simply one more part of my body. Sometimes an annoying part. It’s hard to find bras that fit quite right, so I tug and pull and occasionally curse. And thus I was glad to stumble on this site and feel reminded that my distinctly non-movie-star self is absolutely normal. And I had I known a few years ago that many young women sag a bit, I could have saved myself some angst. That was the simple message I took away, and I gladly acknowledge that others feel differently for valid reasons.
Emily: Thanks for trying to relate to my concern. To be honest, I don’t think I would lose sleep at night knowing that boob pictures were linked to my blog, I just took the Exponent link off of my blog as a matter of principle. Another anonymous: I appreciate your supporting argument that our breasts are sexual. To think that my own natural breasts aren’t sexual would have far more devastating consequences on me then the acceptance that fake breasts are. My objections to pornography are more than just morally based however. I think it would be beneficial to anyone reading this blog to read up on the physiological effects of pornography. An addiction to porn can actually permanentely alter a person’s brain to where they can’t ever find the same pleasure naturally. I agree with Azucar that the birds and the bees need to be understood and discussed, but steering clear of nudity of any kind beyond bedroom doors, just seems like a logical preventative measure to ensure for a happy and fulfilling marital relationship.
My kids, including my teenage son, see my breasts on a regular basis–because I have no problems walking around our house naked or partially clothed.
I’d so much rather demystify breasts than cover up and make them seem taboo. That’s just weird.
And FWIW, I regularly take my male and female kids to art museums with lots of naked bodies on display. So what? We all have bodies and all types of bodies are beautiful and there’s NOTHING PORNOGRAPHIC ABOUT THEM. Period.
Addiction is addiction. Whether to porn or gambling or drugs. That’s what changes a person’s brain–not seeing a few boobies.
So covering up breasts is wierd but walking around the house naked in front of your teenage son isn’t? Interesting.
Eve: By the way, that’s great you take your kids to museums and can let them taste of the fine arts…Like I said before, I don’t have a problem with all forms of nudity, just most. I think we probably disagree with each other’s viewpoints concerning this matter on a myriad of levels. I’m glad that your philosophy is working for you though. Sorry for the belittling tone of my first response.
Another anon:
I would argue that breasts as sexual objects is cultural, while nursing children is biological.
The primary use of breasts is to nurse, simple biology. All other uses of a breast are specific to time and culture, which makes those secondary uses (as useful as breasts may be in that context.)
As I’ve read through these comments, I can’t help but think that pornography is a terribly subjective thing. What determines whether or not something is porn? Is it how sexually stimulating it is?
If a Wahabbi male is turned on by women wearing ankle-bearing capris and uncovered heads and faces, does that make the Target ads and your family photos porn?
It seems presumptuous to automatically assume that something is porn for others because it fits ones own broad standards.
As for me, I think the real battle is fighting the narrow standards of beauty that we are continually force-fed. The Barbie/Britney-ization of ideal female beauty in our society–that’s the true pornography!
I’ve tried (and am still trying) over the past few years to realize that adult women of every age, every body type, every ethnic and cultural background are sexual beings (but not sexual objects). It’s difficult to counteract the media messages that teach all of us, men and women, that older or heavier or pregnant or corporate or maternal women are not sexual beings and are not beautiful physically. I, for one, am grateful for Deborah’s link as part of the effort to fight these stereotypes.
This will be my final word on this. (Sigh of relief for everyone.) I agree that the term “pornography” on a secular level is usually used to refer to nudity that is “intended” to arouse certain feelings. The dictionary definition focuses on intent. On the church website it is defined a bit differently. It reads: “Pornography is any material depicting or describing the human body or sexual conduct in a way that arouses sexual feelings.” This is more subjective, because this definition doesn’t deal with the intent. I recognize that creating pornography clearly wasn’t the “intent” of this website. I also recognize that it would probably be silly of me to pick up a National Geographic with naked women and say “this is porn!” I agree with you Azucar, that much of our society’s feelings towards nudity are socially constructed. I understand that this factor must be included into the spectrum of what is porn and what isn’t. Nevertheless, I don’t think the cultural argument is as valid in the context of LDS doctrine. The standards of the church concerning nudity are extended to every nation. I would assume that some of you endowed women that feel invigorated by this website, would also feel uncomfortable about posing nude on the internet, despite the cause, because of your own moral compass. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I also don’t think that many of you would feel the same about putting up a post of a bunch of men exposing their genetalia, even if the cause was similar. (There has been rise in negative body perception for men too.) If you wouldn’t feel comfortable with this, I think you are holding a double standard and are hypocritical.I don’t hold this website to a wordly standard, I hold it to a higher standard. If this website is truly dedicated to those that hold “a common bond” because of a “connection to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…” I thought the standards of the website would parallel those of the church. I am new to the website and now realize that you are pushing the envelope more than I thought.
It’s enlightening to see where we choose to spin our wheels–Deborah presented us with 15+ links to thoughtful topics, and 43 comments focused on bared breasts, and not one on what is possibly the worse sustained mass rape and sexual mutilation of women in recent history doesn’t receive even one. (Also a shame that there was nothing on that wonderful post on Julian of Norwich, one of my favorite female mystics).
How much better could this world be if we devoted this time and energy to raising awareness of causes that most of us agree on? I wonder why we feel so compelled to focus on our differences (I’m not excluding myself–I’m probably more guilty of this than the rest of you all)?
Deborah,
Thanks for posting the link to the real breast website! I thought it was great. I am considering posing a picture of my post pregnancy tummy on the mother’s bodies page. The pictures of breasts were no more porn than pictures in an Anatomy textbook. Just because some people find something arousing does not make it porn. There are people who are attracted to children, but that doesn’t make my families blog porn. Context is important. It is also important to have a positive body image and to realize that most people don’t look like pin-ups and that is normal and good.